Anupam Dasgupta, Member—This revision petition seeks to impugn the order dated 22.3.2007 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.127 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission disposed of the appeal of the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. (which was one of the Opposite Parties (OPs) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (the “District Forum”) and is respondent No.1 before us against the order dated 14.3.2006 of the District Forum in complaint case No.9 of 2005, in the following terms:

“In view of the aforesaid discussion while allowing this appeal order of the District Forum below, in Consumer Complaint No. 9/2005 dated 14.3.2006 is modified thereby exonerating the appellant of the compensation awarded by the District Forum below, and at the same time holding that the amount ordered by the District Forum below shall now be payable by respondents No.6 and 7 to be shared equally by respondents No.1 to 5. It is clarified that, so far (sic) amount payable to minor respondents is concerned, it will be invested with a Nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit which will be released after their attaining maturity. Liberty is reserved to their guardian for premature release on a case being made out in that behalf.

“Appeal is disposed of subject to this modification in the impugned order, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

2.1. In this case, the complainants (who are respondents No.2 to 6 in this petition) are the legal representatives (LR’s)—sons, widow and daughter respectively—of one Rama Nand, since deceased, who was a work charged employee in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Nankhari Sub-Division of the Government of Himachal Pradesh (GoHP) during 1991-1999. The PWD of the GoHP took out an insurance policy (Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy ‘JPAIP’) with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereafter, ‘the Insurance Company’) some time in January 1996 for coverage of its work-charged/daily-wage labourers/workers against various bodily perils resulting from accident while on duty. The sum assured was Rs. 1,00,000 per employee of the categories mentioned above and the premium was to be deducted quarterly from the wages of these workers and credited to the Insurance Company. The JPAIP cover was extended by the GoHP to employees of the Government, including the work-charged employees covered under the first scheme as well as those of its Boards, Corporations. Universities, etc., and the sum assured for each employee was raised to Rs. 2,00,000 by a circular dated 15.10.1997 of the Finance Department of the GoHP. The JPAIP was valid for the period 25.1.1999 to 24.1.2000, during which the cause of action relating to this case arose.

2.2. The said Rama Nand reportedly fell into a nalla on 24.3.1999 on his way home from work and was traced by his family the next day. He was treated at a hospital at Rampur and later at the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla where he died on 30.3.1999. While the details of what transpired in the intervening period are unclear, it is seen that the LR’s of the said Rama Nand approached the District Forum on 29.10.2001 with a consumer complaint (registered as CC No.1426 of 2002) alleging mainly that the PWD, GoHP (the petitioners before us) and the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. had not released the insurance claim of Rs. 2,00,000 to them. In these proceedings, it was found by the District Forum that the petitioners had not filed any claim in respect of the demise of the said Rama Nand with the Insurance Company, which in any case was not the National Insurance Company Ltd., arrayed as opposite party No.2 in the said complaint, but the New India Assurance Company Ltd. By its order dated 26.5.2003, the District Forum directed as under:

“…..we direct the State to take up the matter with the insurance company with